Depressed Metabolism

In ‘Who is Against Evolution?’, David Friedman discusses the phenomenon that most people who are against teaching creationism tend to avoid and discourage discussing the human implications of evolution themselves:

People who say they are against teaching the theory of evolution are very likely to be Christian fundamentalists. But people who are against taking seriously the implications of evolution, strongly enough to want to attack those who disagree, including those who teach those implications, are quite likely to be on the left.

To them evolution is good for explaining animal behavior, but using the same tools to explain human behavior, let alone letting it influence hiring decisions or public policy, is considered repulsive. It may not be a coincidence that the taboo on discussing human behavior in an evolutionary context parallels the growth of government. A strict “environmentalist” position is a lot more compatible with large scale tinkering  and calls for “change” than a view of human nature that accepts limits to the malleability of man.

This mindset is taken to its ultimate conclusion in some currents of transhumanism, in which no single particle in the universe is exempt from deliberate manipulation to achieve progress. Overcoming nature through technology may turn out to be more empowering for academics and public policy makers than the average individual as it will generate a never ending stream of excuses (new  or revised concepts of “market failure” and “public goods”) for government intervention.

The Transhumanism-Singularity Industrial Complex is near.

On a more positive note, see Friedman’s ‘Future Imperfect‘.